Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  June 27, 2013 5:30pm-6:31pm PDT

5:30 pm
captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> brown: the senate today passed the most significant immigration reform in a generation. good evening, i'm jeffrey brown. >> warner: and i'm margaret warner. on the "newshour" tonight, we examine what did and didn't make it into the final senate bill and the challenge ahead as the fight over immigration shifts to the house. >> brown: then, president obama kicks off a six-day swing through africa. we discuss the past, present and future of the u.s. presence on the continent. >> warner: they're young, they're talented, but the new generation of classical performers are struggling to
5:31 pm
find work. paul solman reports on how hard economic times haven't deterred some starving artists. >> we don't go into music for the money. we go into music because it's part of our soul. it's part of who we are. it's what we have to do. >> brown: we move ahead to the new battlegrounds in the fight over same-sex marriage on the heels of yesterday's landmark rulings from the supreme court. >> warner: and ray suarez looks at the new federal rules, aimed at making meals and snacks offered in schools healthier. >> brown: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪
5:32 pm
moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: a bipartisan senate majority today passed historic legislation reforming the nation's immigration system. the measure offers the hope of citizenship to 11 million immigrants now in the united states illegally. but the bill faces an uncertain
5:33 pm
future in the house of representatives. ray suarez has our report. >> mr. baucus, aye. >> reporter: senators sat in their seats for the final vote on the immigration bill, reflecting the historic nature of the occasion. >> on this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 32. the bill as amended is passed. >> reporter: and with that, the senate approved a sweeping overhaul of the country's immigration system for the first time in almost 30 years. supporters of the legislation praised the result, but acknowledged the fight was far from over. new jersey democrat robert menendez: >> this is an opportunity to do exactly what we did, affect the lives of millions, reduce the debt and improve the security of our nation.
5:34 pm
that's the opportunity before the house. i hope they will take it. >> reporter: senator lindsey graham of south carolina was grateful for a two thirds margin from a body that has a hard time agreeing on anything. >> 68 votes on a body that can't agree that sunday should be a day off is a step in the right direction. the bill will become law when signed by the president. to my friends in the hois, i realize you have a different approach. speak in a way you feel comfortable. just don't ignore the issue. that's all i ask. >> the senate bill would create a pathway to citizenship for some 11 million people currently in the country illegally. the legislation also seeks to bolster security along the southern border by hiring 20,000 new border patrol agents and completing 700 miles of fencing. even with that border security initiative, at a cost of roughly $40 billion, senate republican leader mitch mcconnell said the plan fell short of what is needed. >> one thing i'm fairly certain about is that we'll never
5:35 pm
resolve the immigration problem on a bipartisan basis either now or in the future until we can prove... prove that the border is secure as a condition of legalization. this, to me, continues to be the biggest hurdle to reform. >> reporter: other lawmakers expressed hope the border security elements could be strengthened in the republican- controlled house. texas republican john cornyn: >> one of our colleagues in the house called this bill a runaway train in the senate. that train is getting ready to slow down. and i think the american people will benefit from the congress taking its time to make sure not that we just pass a bill, but we pass a good bill. >> reporter: despite today's bipartisan showing, the senate bill faces uncertain fate in the house. republican speaker john boehner has said his chamber will chart its own course on immigration
5:36 pm
reform-- a point he reinforced in a n wiio reporters t morning. >> the house is not going to take up and vote on whatever the senate passes. we're going to do our own bill through regular order and it'll be legislation that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the american people. >> reporter: boehner added that he believed any bill should have the support of a majority in both parties. house minority leader nancy pelosi said republicans would likely need democratic support to move a bill through the chamber. >> if you want democratic votes, we're just not voting for anything. we know it has to be a compromise. we know who is in the majority. but if you want our votes, it has to be something our members can vote for. >> reporter: the "washington post's" ed o'keefe said the heavy lift will come when, and if, the two chambers have to reconcile their bills. >> what they have to do in the
5:37 pm
house first and foremost is come up with a plan on border security that is considered agreeable for most of the republicans. that would require strengthening, toughening what was passed in the senate, and that might be a bridge too far for senators of both parties who approved the bill on thursday. >> reporter: boehner said today house republicans would discuss their next steps on immigration reform once congress returns from its july fourth recess. >> warner: still to come on the "newshour": president obama in africa; hard times for classical artists; what's next for same-sex marriage and new rules for snacks at school. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> holman: president obama today downplayed the search for national security agency leaker edward snowden who is believed to be in a transit area at a moscow airport. mr. obama said he's quote, "not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker". speaking at a news conference in senegal, the president also said help from other countries in capturing snowden won't be part
5:38 pm
of high level negotiations. >> i'm not going to have one case of a suspect who we're trying to extradite suddenly being elevated to the point where i've got to start doing wheeling and dealing and trading on a whole host of other issues simply to get a guy extradited so that he can face the justice system here in the united states. >> holman: snowden has applied for political asylum in ecuador. but today ecuadorean officials said a pass allowing him to travel there was given in error, and his asylum application has not yet been processed. the obama administration suspended trade benefits for bangladesh today in the wake of two garment factory disasters there in the past year. more than 1,200 people died in the incidents blamed on poor worker safety and labor practices. today's move increases tariffs on products from tobacco to
5:39 pm
sporting goods. but it will have little impact on bangladesh's main export to the u.s.: clothing. the surviving boston marathon bombing suspect was indicted on 30 federal counts today. the grand jury charged dzhokhar tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction, carjacking and killing a massachusetts institute of technology police officer. three people were killed and more than 260 wounded when tsarnaev and his brother allegedly set off pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the marathon in april. tsarnaev's arraignment is scheduled for july 10. the treasury department inspector general said liberal groups were not mistreated by i.r.s. examiners in the same way tea party groups were. in a letter to congressional democrats, j. russell george said only six progressive groups who applied for tax-exempt status were scrutinized compared to some 300 conservative groups. meanwhile, the new head of the i.r.s.-- danny werfel-- faced
5:40 pm
criticism at a congressional hearing over his report about the activities released on monday. >> you're not conducting interviews, you don't know answers to the key questions, yet in the report, you declare there is no evidence of intentional wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of irs personnel. no evidence of intentional wrongdoing. mr. werfel, this report is a sham. >> the notion that no witnesses are being interviewed is not accurate. the accurate answer is that witnesses are being interviewed whether i am personally sitting across the table or not from interviewing. i would love to be able to but the reality is i am going to follow the process and the rule of law to get to the bottom of it. and one of the constraints i have is i have to let professional investigators do the interviewing and that's a constraint i'm willing to live with. >> holman: the i.r.s. practices were roundly condemned by both political parties. at least five i.r.s. officials have been removed from their jobs. federal regulators filed a civil
5:41 pm
lawsuit against former new jersey governor john corzine for failing to properly manage m.f. global. the financial firm collapsed in 2011, when more than a billion dollars in customer funds disappeared. the lawsuit seeks to ban corzine from trading in the futures market and demands he pay unspecified penalties. corzine has disputed the allegations against him. texas has executed its 500th prisoner since the death penalty was reinstated nationally in 1976. in that time, more than 1,300 executions have been carried out in the u.s., 40% of them in texas. kimberly mccarthy was put to death by lethal injection at a state prison in huntsville. she was convicted of stabbing her elderly neighbor to death in 1997. she was the first woman to be executed in the u.s. in nearly three years. for the first time, scientists have cloned a mouse using a single drop of blood. researchers in japan used blood cells from the tail of a living mouse to create the female
5:42 pm
clone. the study is aimed at aiding large-scale production of animals for farming and conservation purposes. the scientists used the same technique that produced dolly the sheep, the world's first cloned mammal. a drop in jobless claims last week gave stocks on wall street a reason to rally today. the dow jones industrial average saw its third-straight triple- digit gain, rising 114 points to close at 15,024. the nasdaq added more than 25 points to close at nearly 3,402. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to margaret. >> warner: next to africa, where president obama's multi-nation tour comes as the world watches the day to day health of former south african leader nelson mandela. president obama today gazed out the "door of no return" on senegal's goree island-- a memorial to the multitude of africans said to have walked through it, bound for slavery in the new world.
5:43 pm
he described the experience-- part of the first family's first full day in africa-- as a very powerful moment. >> and this is a testament to when we're not vigilant in defense of what's right, what can happen. >> warner: earlier, senegalese president macky sall welcomed his american counterpart to the capital city, dakar. >> it is wonderful to be here in senegal. >> warner: both leaders embraced the importance of transparent government, economic development and food-security efforts in the country. but they parted ways over gay rights. homosexuality is a crime in most african nations, including senegal. >> every country, every group of people, every religion have different customs, different traditions. but when it comes to how the state treats people, how the law treats people, i believe that everybody has to be treated
5:44 pm
equally. >> ( translated ): senegal, as far as it is concerned, is a very tolerant country which does not discriminate in terms of inalienable rights of the human being. but we are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality. we have respect for the rights of homosexuals, but for the time being, we are still not ready to change the law. but of course this does not mean that we are all homophobic. >> warner: the president also spoke warmly of former south african president nelson mandela, who remains in critical condition in a johannesburg hospital. >> i think he's a hero for the world. and if and when he passes from this place, one thing i think we'll all know is that his legacy is one that will linger on throughout the ages. >> warner: the obamas will fly to south africa saturday for a visit long in the making, whether he will visit the ailing leader remains uncertain. from there, the president will
5:45 pm
wrap up his week-long trip with a stop in tanzania. noticeably not on the president's itinerary: kenya, his father's birthplace. mr. obama visited as a senator. but his administration is now keeping it's distance from the country's newly elected president, uhuru kenyatta. he is under indictment by the international criminal court on charges he bankrolled post- election ethnic killings in 2007. this is only mr. obama's second presidential trip to sub-saharan africa. the other was a 22-hour stop- over and speech in ghana in 2009. his predecessor, george w. bush made multiple trips to africa, pushing his multi-billion dollar aids funding program-- pepfar-- and a major debt relief plan. and president bill clinton was widely praised for the economic development spurred by his african growth and opportunity act or a.g.o.a. so far, there are no big-ticket items on president obama's
5:46 pm
agenda this trip. but he did today pledge to extend the a.g.o.a. which expires in two years. for more on the president's visit and his administration's performance in africa, we turn to sarah pray, senior policy analyst for africa at the open society foundation. and todd moss, a senior fellow at the center for global development. welcome to you both. todd, beginning with you, how do you rate or grade the obama administration's track record on africa so far? >> well, so far, i think it's been a big disappointment, especially in contrast to presidents clinton and bush that had elevated africa within the foreign policy hierarchy and really had put their stamp, left a mark on u.s. foreign policy that's lasted, you know, up till today. we don't yet see that kind of legacy coming from president obama. and i think it's particularly ironic at this time, as africa is doing better than ever before, and africa is more important to the united states
5:47 pm
than ever before, we're seeing the white house step back from africa and playing a much less-active role. >> warner: sarah pray, do you find it disappointing? and do you hear from the people on the continent that they're disappointed? >> well, i think this trip is perhaps past due, but if nothing else, it's due. it's time. and i think the fact that he has devoted such a significant period of time to this trip, visiting three countries and really prioritizing economic growth and democracy as the two pillars of this trip, i think that's very welcome on the continent. i think-- you mentioned some of the omissions that, the places he will not visit. that clearly has raised quite a fuss on the continent. >> warner: such as kenya, which is one of the economic engines of africa. >> yes. what i think is important to note is that it was, i think, difficult for the president to choose three countries to visit because he wanted to visit places that were advancing in their path towards democracy and
5:48 pm
also offered this economic development opportunities. and i think that shows the opportunity for president obama that these twin pillars of economic development and promotion of democracy can be his legacy. >> warner: let's step back for just a minute, and have you both tell me why this really matters. why is africa important? when you think of all the foreign policy issues that the president's had to deal with from-- you know, from iran winding down two wars-- we know a litany. why is africa important to u.s. interests? or how important? >> right. excellent question. so in a negative sense, as we've seen al qaeda central get attacked, it's spread out into the rest of the world, in particular we've seen al qaeda groups across west africa, and that's raised new security issues. and it's raised the necessity of working with african allies to try to contain this problem.
5:49 pm
but i think more positively, africa is booming economically. i still think a lot of americans think of africa as it was maybe 20 years ago. six out of the 10 fastest growing economies in the wrorld in africa. if you are a company and you're thinking about growth markets, you're not thinking about europe. you should be thinking about africa and, of course, asia. and so i think that the potential opportunities, the upside in turns of economic partnership on business is really tremendous. and that is really why the president is starting to talk, finally bthese economic opportunities. >> warner: that is a big focus, at least according to the white house, of this trip is economic development, seeing africa as a big market for the united states. how is the u.s. doing on that front, especially when you've got some other big competitors for that, certainly china, brazil, to some degree turkey. >> so the latest figures that i saw for 2012 was that chinese
5:50 pm
trade with africa was about $200 billion, and the u.s. was about $100 billion, so about half of that. and what i think is important to underscore when looking at those figures is that u.s. companies want stable operating environments. they want to work with governments that are transparent and accountable to their citizens because it makes for better business. back home, and in africa. so i think, again, if president obama can really hammer home that the u.s. expects the countries in africa to continue on the road to democracy, to be more transparent and accountable to their citizens, that will translate into more investment dollars from u.s. companies. >> warner: but that does raise another difference with china. you look at this itin rarey, going to ghana three years ago-- four years ago now-- it is countries that not only have elections but are trying to build institutions that make the government more accountable. china will do business with everyone.
5:51 pm
do you agree with sarah pray, todd moss, that this is the right focus for the obama administration to take? >> we have many interests in the world and we need to balance those interests. i think in large part the chinese involvement in africa is very positive. china is really good at building infrastructure and they're doing a lot of it i think the administration wants to make sure american companies aren't frozen out of these markets and potential growth opportunities for the united states are not missed out because we're not paying attention or we think, "oh, it's just africa." >> warner: is there more the u.s. government could be doing to help u.s. business? aren't chinese companies backed heavily by the government in beijing? >> well, from my perspective, i feel like the u.s. actually does help u.s. businesses. for example, the extractive industries are huge in africa-- that's the oil, gas, and mining
5:52 pm
industry. the u.s. has been a leader in the extractive initiative, which seeks to make these industries more transparent and more accountable. that's good for u.s. business. that's good for the u.s. government, and hopefully good for the citizens of these countries. i've seen the u.s. playing a very positive role in that. i think there's other opportunities to translate that into other industries, not just the extractives. >> warner: do you think there's more the u.s. government could do to help? >> well, certainly, when other companies' investors arrive in africa, they come with the full backing of their government. the u.s. should play that role. we've done some of it. we've done it with one arm tied behind our backs and we could do it a lot more efficiently. >> warner: what do you mean, "tied behind our backs." >> the u.s. business mod cell very different from the chinese model. the chinese mod cell very state involved. they can come with big packages where they'll have a state-run bank giving a loan for a
5:53 pm
state-owned oil company that will build a state-run power plant. the u.s. is not like that. we have private firms. the firms like to stick to their core business. but countries are still looking for the u.s. to give signals and the companies are looking for signals that africa is open for business. >> warner: all right, todd moss, and sarah pray, we to leave it there. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> brown: now, a tougher job market for younger workers-- all the overall unemployment rate does not require a degree, has jumped to 45 percent among those who are 22 to 27 years old. employment in the arts is especially tough terrain as our economics correspondent paul solman learned, part of his reporting on making sense of financial news. ♪
5:54 pm
>> reporter: gustav mahler's fourth symphony, conducted by james gaffigan, played by the orchestra of perhaps the world's foremost college of the performing arts, juilliard, which costs $55,000 a year to attend. though many are still undergrads, these kids make world class music. no surprise, since they're immensely talented and most of them have been practicing practically all day, every day, since they were tots. and were admitted to one of the world's most selective schools some juilliard departments have less than a 1% acceptance rate. so, what are the job prospects of some the world's most gifted and motivated young college grads? >> for any orchestral opening in the united states, you might have, for one violin opening, 300 people applying that are all completely qualified to do that job. >> reporter: that includes the
5:55 pm
allentown, p.a. orchestra, which diane wittry conducts. >> they play great. they have fabulous technique, great sound, great intonation. >> reporter: so then the obvious question: how do you decide whom to hire? >> it's almost like the olympics. my harp player-- i was just talking to her during rehearsal, and she had recently taken an audition, they give you a piece that's really hard, and if you do really well in that one, you get to play another piece, and then do really well on that one, you get to play another piece, and she was on the sixth excerpt and then she messed up and missed a note. and then it's like, "thank you very much." >> reporter: come on, one note? >> yes, you make a mistake and you're out. and that's how competitive it is in the audition process. >> reporter: and if you think it's tough for instrumentalists, what about dancers? each dance class at juilliard starts small, 24 students or so, and gets even smaller, through attrition. there are job opportunities for male dancers, less competition for each slot.
5:56 pm
the women, however, face almost impossible odds. gallim dance company, a small and up-coming modern dance troupe based in brooklyn, recently advertised an opening. >> and we had 700 dancers audition for the slot. >> reporter: 700. >> 700. >> reporter: meredith max hodges is gallim's executive director. >> many of these dancers were graduates of conservatories, full time dance programs. these were serious candidates. >> reporter: but no matter how serious, how talented, in today's job market for the arts, there is no guarantee, or even much likelihood, of success. who's to blame? a familiar culprit has had a hand: the great recession. according to one survey, 75% of new york's nonprofit performing arts groups, those most likely to employ the classically trained, slashed budgets in 2009 and few if any are back to pre-
5:57 pm
crash levels. a second villain of the piece is technology. when this mahler work premiered in 1901, there was one way to hear: in person, meaning dozens of people had to be paid to perform it, over and over again. that same year, however, the victor talking machine company was established, allowing one recorded performance, or just a few, to replace many, many live ones. a century later, searching online for video of mahler's fourth symphony yields 25 million hits. so why leave home and pay real money to hear and see the same thing? >> we are in the business of selling buggy whips in the age of the automobile. >> reporter: greg sandow teaches a juilliard course on the grim future of an art form that, he says, simply hasn't kept up with the times.
5:58 pm
>> the audience has been aging for around 50 years, so this is not sustainable. the people who are listening to classical music are getting older and are not being replaced by an equivalent number of younger people. >> reporter: one hope is that an aging population will continue to patronize work like this, and the musicians who perform it, for awhile longer. though for some older people even works like this bela bartok violin concerto can be a challenge and it was written 75 years ago. but a 2009 national endowment for the arts study summed up the larger trend: between 1982 and 2008, attendance at performing arts such as classical music, opera, ballet, has seen double- digit rates of decline. in short, fewer and fewer jobs for highly skilled classical performing artists.
5:59 pm
which means, by the cold law of supply and demand, stagnant or falling wages, except for the brand names who can still draw a crowd. >> it's not like, well, you hoped you were going to be a world beating entrepreneur, but you end with a solid mid-level job in a corporation. in the arts, it doesn't really work out that way. you have 20 odd orchestras in what the league of american orchestras calls group one, and the minimum salary is quite respectable. but then, beneath that, you have orchestras playing four, five, six concerts a year and the musicians who play in those orchestras are racking up untold miles on their cars, going from gig to gig. >> and a player at allentown might make $6,000 to 7,000 a year. >> reporter: $6,000 or $7,000 a year? what else do they do? >> what they do is they play in reading, in harrisburg, and they
6:00 pm
play in the philadelphia opera, and they play in delaware symphony. and many of them also teach privately and have teaching studios. >> reporter: so we're creating more and more musicians who, in order to earn a living, have to teach, creating more and more really great students, who then have to do the same thing. it's like a ponzi scheme! >> because you're thinking of it like an economist. but we, as musicians, we don't go into music for the money. we go into music because its part of our soul; it's part of who we are. it's what we have to do. we want to share music with the world, and we would do it whether we got paid or not. >> reporter: now of course, and sandow and wittry agree, it was in a sense ever thus. "la boheme," act one, scene one: rodolfo burns the pages of his new play to keep himself and roommate marcello from freezing.
6:01 pm
>> now the problem is worse, because there are fewer of the jobs that used to exist. and many of the ones that still exist, like those in orchestras, may feel precarious and musicians are taking pay cuts. >> reporter: moreover, though puccini's 19th century bohemians were behind on the rent, even they weren't in the hole for tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt. not unusual for today's fine arts grads, like 28-year old dancer caroline fermin, who says the market salary of $28,000 she earns from her highly coveted full-time job at gallim dance barely allows her to keep up with the payments on the $60,000 she borrowed to attend juilliard. indeed, many artists are calling it quits here in the u.s. and heading abroad. >> i have a lot of friends that, move somewhere, to europe or
6:02 pm
likewise to have a job that's supported by the government, that gives more money to the dancers. >> reporter: what percentage of the dancers you know and are friendly with are now primarily abroad? >> maybe 50%. >> 50 sounds right. >> reporter: 24-year-old emily terndrup graduated from the university of utah, dances in an off-off-broadway show to help make ends meet. >> it seems like the work is getting divorced from the pay a lot here in america, where if you like to do this, you should do this for free. where in europe i still feel like it's if were asking you to come and do this, we will pay you for the time we are taking. it's disappearing in america. >> reporter: a common lament, though of course not just in the arts. but why do performing artists here still stick it out? >> if you're doing something you love, you figure out how to keep it alive, you know.
6:03 pm
if it's you and if it's your truth, you just keep on going. >> reporter: but chances are also that you won't necessarily make enough to live on. >> all the more reason to create your job, your own job. create your own project; go out there and be your own boss, and figure out something that hasn't been done before, and chances are you'll love it. >> reporter: but how does a performing artist who practices all day every day learn how to practice entrepreneurship as well? that is a story for another day, a story we intend to tell soon. >> warner: online, conductor diane witty gives paul a lesson in leading an orchestra. you can watch that on our homepage. >> brown: and now: the day after as we look at the practical and political implications of the supreme court's pair of rulings on gay marriage. >> we believe in basic fairness. >> brown: in senegal today the
6:04 pm
president again praised the supreme court decision that struck down a key section of the defense of marriage act. the provision had denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. >> what i think yesterday's ruling signifies is one more step towards ensuring that those basic principles apply to everybody. >> brown: and, as celebrations broke out in some parts of the country yesterday, the heads of several federal agencies welcomed the decision and said they'd move quickly to comply. but the president noted that both inside and outside of the executive branch that could be tricky. >> you still have a whole bunch of states that do not recognize it. it's my personal belief, but i'm speaking now as a president as opposed to as a lawyer, that if you've been married in massachusetts and you move someplace else, you're still married. >> brown: across the nation,
6:05 pm
either through the courts or the ballot box, 13 states and the district of columbia have moved to recognize gay marriage. meanwhile 35 others have either state laws or constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman. a host of other states have laws either permitting or denying civil unions and benefits. and just today the supreme court declined to take up two state marriage cases, one involving a ban on gay marriage in nevada and another involving an arizona law that denies benefits to same-sex partners. >> brown: we have two takes on questions being asked about the day after the rulings. first, some analysis now of how the court's ruling on the defense of marriage act may change federal benefits for same-sex couples and what questions remain. winnie stachelberg joins me to explain. she's an executive vice president at the center for american progress. welcome to you. >> great to be here. >> brown: i want to pick up first on what the president was saying about this issue of couples married in one state moving to a state where,
6:06 pm
perhaps, that's not recognized. how big a deal, first, is this patchwork system that we have? >> well, the patchwork system is a very big deal, which is why we are eager to have marriage equality in all 50 states because the patchwork just doesn't work for a married couple. what exists right now is in the 13 states and the district of columbia where are you legally married-- you are legally married for the purposes of state benefits-- and now with doma's demise, federal benefits. the tricky issue comes up if you have a legal marriage in massachusetts, one of those states, and then you move to alabama. you're still married, and the question now remains do you get federal benefits living in alabama? >> brown: well, pick up on that. that's after doma, right? what is happening right away after yesterday's rulings forking for agencies to start making decisions like that? >> as you say the in your setup piece, what is happening right now is federal agencies are moving to change forms, to
6:07 pm
promulgate regulations to make clear if you are a married couple living in one of those states and you are literally married, federal benefits will flow to you, whether that's social security survivor benefits, federal health benefits, benefits that go to people in the military. those will all flow to the people who are legally married in those 13 states and the district of columbia. and the federal agencies are moving as quickly as they can. there's a 25-day window for the decision to take effect. but those agencies are moving now to train workers, to change forms, and to get in place the proper forms and statistics and all of that so that those benefits can flow to those couples. >> brown: fiunderstand this right, one of the issues, though, is the agencies define marriage, when a marriage is valid, differently, coordination to where it might have taken place, where a couple lives now, et cetera. >> that's exactly right. so right now, there is a place of celebration or a place of
6:08 pm
domicile rule. and various benefits flow depending on whether the agency follows a place of celebration or a place of domicile rule. for example, social security administration, spousal benefits, survivor benefits, very important to gay and lesbian couples, very, very important. and those flow from a place of celebration. so for the purposes of social security benefits those should start to flow to gay and lesbian married couples right away. there are other benefits that are dependent on a place of domicile rule-- in other words, are you married in a certain state and you reside in that state, you're okay. but if you are married in a certain state and you move to another state, those federal benefits, it's a little trickier. >> brown: and some of these other things, military, veterans' benefits, immigration laws. >> interestingly, on immigration laws, those follow place of
6:09 pm
celebration laws. minutes after the supreme court rule, you saw a new york immigration judge grant a binational couple-- ended their deportation proceedings because doma fell in new york state where the couple was legally married. >> brown: the president asked attorney general hold tore review federal benefits at all of these agencies that we're talking about. some of these things can be done by executive action. do some of them require congress? >> that is unclear whether all of them can be taken care of through executive action. the advocates we are asking this administration to issue an executive order to move that any agency that requires a place of domicile rule, where you live, not where your marriage was celebrated or solemnized -- that the executive order be issued to make clear it is in fact a place of celebration. >> brown: and do you expect all of this to-- to the extent there is a continuing disconnect, where we started, among states, do you expect more litigation to rise out of all this?
6:10 pm
>> well, i think right now we're focused on ensuring that the benefits flow to those couples who are legally married in these states. one other interesting note is those in active military duty through the pentagon b30% of the compensation of someone in the military is base pay salary. about 70% of that compensation is actually benefits. and the defense department is moving very quickly to ensure that gay and lesbian married couples get the kinds of benefits that their heterosexual counter-parts get as well. >> brown: all right, winnie stachelberg, thank you very much. >> pleasure to be here, thanks. >> brown: and now to some of the political reverberations of the decisions from new york attorney general eric schneiderman and republican congresswoman vicky hartzler from missouri. welcome to both of you. eric schneiderman, i want to start with you. you've been a strong proponent of same-sex marriage. pick up first on the discussion we were just having about this patchwork of laws. how big a problem is it, do you think? what issues does it raise?
6:11 pm
>> well, we had a patchwork before. i mean, some states, like new york in our state, our legislature passes -- our governor signed a law allowing same-sex marriage. up until yesterday, including edie wibdzor, were not treated with the respect of other marriages. we still have a patchwork but we have the federal government taking their thumb off the scale, if you will, under the fifth amendment, its federal government cannot, as justice kennedy wrote, write inequality into the u.s. code. and we expwect the government to take action as the president has indicated to clean up some of the remaining problems administratively with that. now, new york marriages and marriages from massachusetts and everywhere else, people who are look likely married and the children they are raise regular going to be treat bide the federal government with the same dig tee and respect as every other marriage. that is a great step forward for new yorkers and equality.
6:12 pm
>> brown: congresswoman hartzler, same question to you, as someone who has been a strong opponent of same-sex marriage what do you make of the patchwork around the nation? >> i think it speaks to why they passed that initially, that marriage at the federal level is between one man and one woman. there are over 1,000 different federal laws that have to do with marriage. it was for a very practical reason. it wasn't animous against anyone, as if justice kennedy portrayed. it was because of very practical reason, and i believe in dual sovereignty, and that the state should be able to make laws governing states, and the federal government should be able to make laws regarding the federal government. and it makes sense for children that we have and uphold marriage as between one man and one woman. it's for the best for them, and we should be able to uphold that ideal for them. >> brown: eric schneiderman, where do you see the politics now coming out, out of yesterday's decision? where are we now when you look
6:13 pm
around at different states. >> that-- i think the politics are and were clear, and i think the latest survey shows something like 80% of americans under the age of 30 favor same-sex marriage and equality of all those marriages. and i have to say that the politics were moving interests equality, the same way the politics of integration and end to racial discrimination have been moving towards equality. this is a part of our american tradition. one of the most important things about the decision is it puts to rest the argument that there is anyone harmed by the recognition of same-sex marriages. there is no person. there's no straight marriage. there's no institution that is harmed that was-- they had arizona to come up with this. justice kennedy didn't find it. the only thing left after the prop 8 case is cleared away is the decision of the district court in california. 136 pages, same principle-- equal justice under law requires the recognition of all marriages. the only people who are being harmed were the millions of
6:14 pm
same-sex couples across america, and the children that those couples were raising because you may not like the fact that there are gay people in loving relationships and that they're raising lots of kids, but they are. and now, since the supreme court ruled, they are entitled to equal treatment by the federal government and i think that is just going to continue the trend in states around the country as we-- as we have always as a country-- move towards greater inclusion and greater equality with every generation. >> brown: let me ask congresswoman hartzler. you joined a group of legislative lawmakers talking about coming up with some kind of response to this. what kind of response would that be? >> first, i think it's very important to note that the supreme court did not make same-sex marriage the law of the land across the country, and they're going to allow and uphold the 35 states who have said that marriage is between one man and one woman. and i would say that it's certainly not inevitable. we're going to continue this discussion, but we even had north carolina last year voted to uphold marriage between one
6:15 pm
man and one woman. i think it's a disgrace for the democracy that the supreme court did not allow the millions of people in california who spoke on this issue, not once but twice-- to have a voice and say in this and their attorney general abandoned them. i think that's a real shame. and that's what was at stake yesterday, is the will of the people going to prevail or are five unelected bureaucrats going to override the will of the people and silence their voice and that's what happened. >> brown: do you not see the kind of cultural shift as well as political shift mr. schneiderman was talking about? >> it certainly is a discussion we are having as a nation. but i don't think the story is totally told on this at all. like i said, there's a vast majority of americans who support marriage between one man and one woman because they know it's a special institution that sets up the best place to raise children in this society, and that's why government is in the marriage business. it's not because it cares about
6:16 pm
romance. it's because it cares about the rights of children and promoting an environment that is best for their upbringing. and so i think many people still uphold that ideal, and still want that. and so we're going to continue to see that advanced in this country. >> brown: mr. schneiderman, it is true that the majority of states still have bans. so there is still-- go ahead. >> there were a lot of states in 1967 that banned interracial marriage when the court ruled that it was unconstitutional in "loving v. virginia." the only children being hurt by states that discriminate against marriage equality are the kids being raised by gay couples. there's no harm to our families, straight families, who have kids or want to be marry odor get divorced from authorizing and empowering same-sex couples. but there is a reason we have a constitution in this thi. there is a reason there are some laws you just can't pass. you can't pass a law saying black people aren't equal to white people or women aren't equal to men. and yesterday there was a very strong statement that you cannot pass a law that has no other
6:17 pm
justification, and the proponents of these laws had years to come up with it, and they had nothing. you can't pass a law that discriminates against gay couples and gay people, and that's just in keeping with our american tradition. and i think in 20 or 30 years, people will look back on this, as we now look back on "loving v. virginia" and the days of prohibition of interracial marriages and think what were they thinking? i'm proud to be a part of america and a new yorker and i think edie windsor and the others fighting for their rights and i look forward to other state following new york. >> brown: a quick last word from you, vicky hartzler, do you think we're going to see more litigation, potentially book up to the supreme court on this subject? >> oh, absolutely. there's going to be a lot of litigation on this rule. there wasn't clarity on a lot of it, and the american people still believe that fathers and mothers are important in the lives of their children and they're going to continue to see
6:18 pm
that marriage does matter and that we need to continue to advance and uphold those ideals in our country. >> brown: vicky hartzler, eric schneiderman, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> brown: online, our resident social security expert weighs in on the new benefits that can now be accessed by same-sex spouses. that's on our making sense page. >> warner: finally tonight, new rules requiring healthier snacks to be sold in schools beginning next year. ray suarez has the story. >> suarez: estimates suggest that many kids consume at least half their daily calories while at school. the new rules, from the u.s. department of agriculture, are designed to lower the amount of fat, salt and sugar in a child's diet. starting next summer, vending machines would not have traditional candy bars oror exa. high schoolers will only be abl.
6:19 pm
the regulations, which affect 50 million students, do not cover food sold after school or brought from home or a bake sale. for more i am joined by margo wootan, director of nutrition policy at the center for science in the public interest. we invited several food and beverage companies, as well as their trade associations, to join us. but they declined our offer. margo wootan, how does the federal government, by what authority, do they reach out into all these thousands of school stricts and compel this kind of new standard? >>un, school foods say little different than other aspects of education. you know, often education is more regulated at the state and local level, but when it comes to school foods, it's for a long time been a federal program. most of the money comes from the federal government, from congress, and the u.s. department of agriculture. so they have nutrition standards as conditions for getting that funding. if you're going to take the $13 billion a year, you need to
6:20 pm
serve kids healthy food. so congress and u.s. da sets detailed nutrition standards for school meals and now they will have standards that compete with those school meals. >> suarez: will cafeterias and companies that make prepared foods have to significantly change what's on offer in order to qualify to be sold in schools starting next year? >> you know, we've been working on this issue for a long time, about a decade. so over that time, states have passed policies and individual school districts have passed policies. so companies have been working to change the mix of products that they make available to schools. this is just going to make sure that it happens in almost all schools across the whole country. >> suarez: aren't some products totally out from now on? >> it is true that some things like regular candy bars, cookies, sugary sports drinks, and soad as, are not going to be sold in schools during the school day. but there are lot of other foods that kids like that will be
6:21 pm
sold. they're going to have water, juice, milk, and carbonated water in all schools, plus lower calorie beverages in high schools. for snacks there are things like granola bars, nuts, dried fruit, fruit cups. it will be a much healthier mix of products, but things kids have seen and like. >> suarez: opponents and skeptics point to a government accountability office report that found schools ahead of the curve in changing these policies there were garbage cans piled high with things like apples and lower calorie snack foods, higher fiber baked goods. the kids just didn't want them, and they just didn't eat them. >> in most schools, actually, things are going very well. it takes a little time for schools to figure out what products the kids like. you know, for years, for decades, they've been serving the same things, and so when you're cutting back on the junk and replacing it with healthier foods, you gotta figure out what products the kids like. things like taste testing,
6:22 pm
having the kids vote for their favorite options, getting the kids enganged really helps. and in schools where they've been doing this for a while, the waste isn't a problem. >> suarez: sandra ford, the president of the school nutrition association, remarked that the new meal pattern requirements of significantly increased the expense of preparing school meals at a time when food costs were already on the rise. is there going to be an economic difficulty in reaching some of these new goals? >> for school meals, us da has been providing the main source of funding for those meals. and as a result of a law that was passed in 2010, the healthy hunger for kids act, usda is providing more resources to schools for school lurch, an additional six cents for reimbursement, and changes in pricing structure that bring more revenue in. so these new revenues should be covering the costs.
6:23 pm
for those schools that are struggling, i think mostly we need to give them some more training and technical assistance to show them how they can serve healthy meals at a reasonable cost. >> suarez: so this doesn't necessarily mean that kids heading to the vending machine or standing in the tray line in the cafeteria will have to spend more money? >> no. the prices that the kids pay will stay the same mostly. they have been, for the kids, middle and upper income kids, they have been trying to bring the prices of the school lunches in line with what it really costs. in the past, a lot of times, schools didn't charge what it actually cost them to prepare the meals for middle and upper income families. so schools were losing member from that. us da is giving schools some advice and some guidance about how to sensibly price the foods in order to cover their costs. but schools can do a lot of things. they can form buying cooperatives with other school districts so they can get a better price. they can work out better contracts with schools, with the
6:24 pm
companies that make the food for food service. there are things that lots of schools are doing to bring down the cost. we know that tens of thousands of schools around the country are serving healthy meals at the current reimbursement rate. for those schools that aren't, we just need to get them the training and technical assistance they need in order to do what other schools are doing. >> suarez: margo wootan, for the center for science in the public interest, thanks for joining us. >> nice to be here. >> brown: again, the major developments of the day: the senate passed an historic bill overhauling the nation's immigration laws, but it faces an uphill battle in the republican-controlled house. president obama began a six-day trip to africa in senegal, including a visit to a former slave trading post. and the boston marathon bombing suspect was indicted on federal and state charges in the april >> warner: members of congress were defeated last night on the softball field. kwame holman has more. >> holman: members of the press: 11. members of congress: eight. the battle? the congressional women's softball game. read a recap of the charity
6:25 pm
event from "newshour's" own christina "beltin'" bellantoni. and in a tight job market, graduates are increasingly turning to service programs like teach for america and city year. read about that on our homepage. and nelson mandela's daughter zindzi spoke recently about her father's health. we share excerpts of her conversation with charlayne hunter-gault. all that and more is on our website margaret? >> warner: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm margaret warner. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. with mark shields and michael gerson, among others. thanks for joining us. good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and...
6:26 pm
>> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh
6:27 pm
6:28 pm
6:29 pm
6:30 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on